decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


To read comments to this article, go here
2 More Lawyers Officially Added to SCO's team in Novell case
Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 12:15 AM EDT

Pacer is showing two new pro hac vice filings in SCO v Novell, adding Stuart Singer and William Dzurilla to the SCO team. Funny thing is, they both appeared already at the last hearing in July. Oh, well. Who's counting dotted i's? Here's the Pacer listing:
10/23/2006 160 - MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Stuart H. Singer Registration fee $ 15, receipt number 407276. filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit B # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Hatch, Brent) (Entered: 10/23/2006)

10/23/2006 161 - MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice of William Dzurilla Registration fee $ 15, receipt number 407281. filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit B # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Hatch, Brent) (Entered: 10/23/2006)

One thing's for sure. If and when SCO finally loses, it won't be because they didn't have enough lawyers. Singer is, in my view, one of the best Boies Schiller has, so I'm not surprised they'd want him assigned to this case that has been rapidly nosediving straight down to earth, then through the center of the earth, and coming out in China, from SCO's perspective.

IBM's David Marriott told the court two years ago in SCO v. IBM that SCO's massive discovery demands were like asking for a road map to China when you're trying to get to LA. You won't make it to LA with that road map, he said. You can't get a Linux-Unix comparison by looking at AIX and Dynix code. Was the man right or was the man right? SCO got absolutely nowhere, most particularly not to LA, as it pondered at length over every version of every map of China, including all the drafts, and all the maps of all the roads in China, including all the roads ever contemplated but never actually built. And they are now, IBM says, standing empty-handed before the court. They never made it to LA. But here's SCO, in SCO v. Novell, a case it initiated itself, careening in its runaway spaceship straight to China. Well. Switzerland, actually.

Findlaw says Dzurilla's speciality is antitrust law. Why ever would SCO need that? Things that make you go hmm.

What a funny upside down world SCO resides in, where up is down and black is white, and SCO takes money arranged for it by a company twice convicted of antitrust violations, Microsoft -- to hear Larry Goldfarb and Mike Anderer tell it -- and then uses the money to hire an antitrust lawyer for its litigation ... against Novell. That's one wild alternative universe. In SCO's upside down Wonderland, the GPL is unconstitutional, and there's nothing wrong with trying to damage Linux, Microsoft's principal competition, and so SCO dances on and on, like the dance of the seven veils, for Microsoft's pleasure. Allegedly. Microsoft says it's not true. It just *feels* true. Joke. Joke. I couldn't help myself. Remember that from "Sleepless in Seattle?"

Speaking of hearings, tomorrow is the hearing in SCO v IBM on SCO's motion to try to salvage the claims it tried to slip in the back door at the 11th hour. That's pretty much what Judge Wells said she thought it looked like to her:

Based on the foregoing, the court finds that SCO has had ample opportunity to articulate, identify and substantiate its claims against [IBM]. The court further finds that such failure was intentional and therefore willful based on SCO’s disregard of the court’s orders and failure to seek clarification. In the view of the court it is almost like SCO sought to hide its case until the ninth inning in hopes of gaining an unfair advantage despite being repeatedly told to put “all evidence . . . on the table.”

She tossed most of the material SCO tried to slide into the case via its experts after discovery was over in her Order. Now SCO would like that "unfair advantage" back, and so it filed objections to her order with Judge Kimball, and tomorrow is SCO's opportunity to present its arguments.


  View Printable Version


Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )